citizen values assessment: incorporating citizens' value judgements in environmental impact...

This article was downloaded by: [Ams/Girona*barri Lib]On: 08 October 2014, At: 04:06Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Impact Assessment and Project AppraisalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tiap20

Citizen values assessment: incorporating citizens'value judgements in environmental impactassessmentAnnelies Stolp a , Wim Groen , Jacqueline van Vliet & Frank Vanclay ba Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management , Civil Engineering Division ,PO Box 20000, 3502 , LA , Utrecht , The Netherlands Phone: +31 30 2857833 Fax: +31 302857833 E-mail:b Tasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research, University of Tasmania, CVA methoddevelopment project , Hobart , Tasmania , 7001 , Australia E-mail:Published online: 20 Feb 2012.

To cite this article: Annelies Stolp , Wim Groen , Jacqueline van Vliet & Frank Vanclay (2002) Citizen values assessment:incorporating citizens' value judgements in environmental impact assessment, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal,20:1, 11-23, DOI: 10.3152/147154602781766852

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154602781766852

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tiap20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.3152/147154602781766852

http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154602781766852

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal March 2002 1461-5517/02/010011-13 US$08.00 IAIA 2002 11

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal , volume 20, number 1, March 2002, pages 11–23, Beech Tree Publishing, 10 Watford Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 2EP, UK

Citizen values assessment

Citizen values assessment: incorporating citizens’ value judgements in environmental impact assessment

Annelies Stolp, Wim Groen, Jacqueline van Vliet and Frank Vanclay

Citizen values assessment (CVA), developed in the Netherlands Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, is a research method that assesses citizens’ judgements about the qualities of their living environment. CVA considers how planned developments may affect environmental qualities from the perspective of people who live in, or otherwise use, the area affected by the project. A case study relating to the proposed redesign of an inner city highway is presented. CVA provides valuable additional information that can be used in environmental impact assessment (EIA) proce-dures, and a specific technique for incorporating social considerations, thereby assisting in the inte-gration of social impact assessment within EIA.

Keywords: social impact assessment; SIA methodology; citizen values; scoping; living environment; EIA; environmental values; community profile

Annelies Stolp (contact author) is Leader of the CVA Team, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Civil Engineering Division, PO Box 20000, 3502 LA Utrecht, The Netherlands; Tel: +31 30 2857833; Fax: +31 30 2858195; E-mail: [email protected]. Wim Groen and Jacque-line van Vliet were Project Manager of CVA studies (1997–2001 and 1995–1998 respectively). Professor Frank Vanclay from the Tasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research, Univer-sity of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia is an inter-national adviser to the CVA method development project; E-mail: [email protected].

XPERT OPINIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL values and impacts, including those of social impact assessment (SIA) practitioners, can be

different from the way citizens feel about the state of their living environment (where they live, work and play) and how intended activities may impact on the various attributes of that environment. Therefore, in environmental impact assessment (EIA), SIA and other planning procedures, it is necessary to investi-gate the way people judge their living environment, and how they think a planned project may affect its qualities. This may provide additional relevant in-formation to decision-makers.

Unfortunately, consideration of citizens’ value judgements is not routinely undertaken in EIA or SIA. Both tend to remain technocratic in orientation avoiding any detailed consideration of the ways people are affected (Burningham, 1995; Dale and Lane, 1994; 1995; Gagnon et al, 1993; Ortolano and Shepherd, 1995).

Despite awareness within SIA of differences in perceptions among social groups, and between ex-perts and the affected communities, the SIA litera-ture has very little specification of the actual methods used to determine citizen values. In fact, SIA does not have many specified techniques, de-spite endorsement of a general procedure in the Interorganizational Committee’s “Guidelines and principles for social impact assessment” (ICGP, 1994) and despite the outlines provided by Freuden-burg (1986), Taylor et al (1995), Burdge and Vanclay (1995), Burdge (1998) and Vanclay (1999).

E

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

4:06

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Incorporating citizens’ value judgements in EIA

12 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal March 2002

Although SIA is said to be a fully recognised com-ponent of EIA (Burdge and Vanclay, 1995), social impacts are rarely included in EIA studies.

The need to consider differences between citizens and experts in the perceived qualities of the envi-ronment, together with the lack of specified tech-niques, led to the development of citizen values assessment (CVA). The CVA research method was conceived and developed within the Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management (Rijkswaterstaat) of the Netherlands Ministry for Transport, Public Works and Water Management.

The method has been utilised in over 20 applica-tions at a total cost of more than two million euros. CVA studies have been conducted for: infrastructure projects (highways, railways); the siting of depots for highly contaminated sediment; dike reinforce-ment; harbour development; river embankment de-sign; coastal protection structures; and risk analyses related to flood protection and river dredging. De-velopment of CVA began in 1995 with one part-time person. Now, it has grown into a CVA Unit employ-ing eight professionals, contracting out much work to consultants.

Characterisation of CVA

Central to CVA is the difference that an intended activity will make to the living environment of peo-ple potentially affected by a project, and that in any EIA this must be described from the perspective of those people. So, CVA is primarily an instrument to incorporate within an EIA the importance people attach to particular environmental attributes.

The term ‘citizen values’ is interpreted here to mean the value judgements of individuals about the quality of their living environment and its various attributes. The living environment comprises the area in which people live, work and play. By cit i-zens, we mean all residents and other users of an area potentially affected by an intended activity. The word ‘citizen’ was chosen because it reinforces the notion that the level of analysis is the individual, and it does not refer to citizenship or nationality.

CVA provides an inventory of the values people in affected communities assign to their living envi-ronment through in-depth interviews with individual citizens. This is later validated by a quantitative sur-vey of a representative sample of the population. Selected key values are presented in a citizen values profile (CVP) which forms the basis of assessment by which project alternatives are evaluated. The CVP is translated into evaluation criteria, which are subsequently operationalised by qualitative and quantitative variables.

CVA thus combines a ‘normative approach’, us-ing subjective value judgements of individual cit i- zens and the meanings they attach to the qualities of the living environment, with a ‘technocratic approach’ using scientifically rigorous and technically

sound data. By identifying the key values of the living environment rather than opinions about alternatives, CVA is not influenced by fears, public resistance or the positions of interest groups. By providing systematic and ‘neutral’ information, CVA provides a rational basis for decision-making. This information is complementary to expert judge-ments and can be added to the analysis of impacts in environmental impact statements (EISs) and other policy evaluation reports.

CVA does not measure attitudes, nor is it an in-strument to investigate citizens’ preferences or opin-ions about alternative plans or projects. The method does not measure community views about the future impacts of projects, nor does it evaluate the extent of acceptance of, or resistance to, intended activities. Instead, it is an EIA instrument that measures citi-zens’ judgements about the qualities of the living environment, and provides a framework for analysis by which the possible impacts of project alternatives on those environmental attributes can be evaluated.

CVA does not provide an overview of the full range of possible social impacts of a given project. It only applies to those social impacts associated with perceived environmental values, and not to other dimensions of social impact such as health and so-cial well-being, economic impacts and material well-being, cultural impacts, family and community impacts, gender impacts, and so on. Furthermore, CVA is not designed to understand why people be-have as they do in relation to their living environ-ment. Nor does it predict how they will respond to possible changes in the living environment as a re-sult of a proposed development.

A crucial difference between CVA and public involvement is that CVA is a structured research process providing an overview of citizen values and how a project may affect those values, whereas pub-lic involvement is intended to obtain input and gain support by discussing alternatives directly with rep-resentatives of affected communities and other inter-est groups. Public involvement does not necessarily systematically represent the community (Burdge and Vanclay, 1995; Vanclay, 1999). Those individuals involved in public participation processes are often higher educated, better informed, have relatively more time, and a higher level of interest in the pro-ject than the average citizen.

Public involvement does not guarantee a represen-tative overview of what the environment means to all potentially affected citizens. An adequate and representative consideration of citizen’s judgements of environmental attributes, and how project alterna-tives may affect these qualities, requires a structured research process, which CVA provides.

Premises of CVA

CVA was founded on three basic premises. First, decisions about what matters in the environment and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

4:06

08

Oct

ober

201

4


Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal March 2002 13

what is studied as part of an EIA should be based on value orientations that are explicit and these should not come exclusively from technical experts. The people who are actually living in an area have im-portant knowledge to share, based on their use and experience of the local environment and their obser-vations of the operations of facilities and infrastruc-ture. Their lived rationality should not only be incorporated by means of public involvement during the project planning and EIA process, but should also be incorporated in the final document that de-scribes, evaluates and compares alternatives.

Second, the inclusion of citizen values explicitly in the EIA process increases the quality of the EIS, because it provides a broader overview of positive and negative aspects of alternatives. Adding CVA to EIA improves the rational basis for decision-making because it provides additional information on envi-ronmental values, project and mitigation design, im-pacts, and comparison of alternatives. Moreover, including citizen values in an EIS puts them on an equal footing with scientific and technical informa-tion. This increases the legitimacy of the document from the perspective of the public (van Vliet, 1996).

Third, citizen values are best reflected if the research approach used furnishes a detailed under-standing of the meaning of the living environment to citizens themselves. This requires a research ap-proach that respects citizens’ perceptions of reality in the process of collecting and analysing data.

Detailed outline of CVA

CVA consists of four phases and a follow-up step related to integration of the outcomes of CVA in the EIS or other policy evaluation document. Phase 1 consists of problem definition, delineation and iden-tification of interest groups, and the collection of background information.

Phase 2 is a preliminary qualitative study to provide in-depth understanding of local peoples’ connections to the area affected by the project. Semi-structured interviews are conducted with peo-ple from all relevant interested and affected parties, including residents, commuters, workers, day-trippers and tourists. The outcome is a listing of the

selected key values of the affected community (a preliminary profile).

In Phase 3, a quantitative survey is conducted to validate the key values identified in Phase 2, to de-termine the relative importance of those key values, and how respondents feel about their present living environment in respect of these key values. The out-come is an assessment matrix or citizen values profile.

In Phase 4, the CVP is translated into evaluation criteria. Qualitative or quantitative variables are identified for each of the assessment criteria. Im-pacts are determined and alternatives are compared.

After the CVA study is completed, the results should be integrated in the EIA or other policy evaluation document. A possible way to integrate CVA outcomes in an EIS is the development of a citizen values scenario complementary to other sce-narios like an economic scenario or a nature scenario.

Phase 1: basic groundwork

Phase 1 is a brief investigation to identify the likely area of impact, the geographical area in which im-pacts may occur (that is, the study area), and the groups of citizens that are potentially affected. It provides insight into landuse patterns, relevant groups of landusers and the organisations represent-ing them. Relationships among interests, and be-tween interests and the proposed development, are analysed.

The study area may differ from that considered by the various experts, depending on how alternatives are defined, and how the zone of impact is determined. In CVA, the study area is usually de-fined as the area where impacts can be experienced by the sensory perception of those who live in, and/or use, it.

A preparatory study starts with an analysis of relevant documents, such as maps, photographs, municipal guides, reports, newspapers, and other information, to identify landuse patterns and relevant interest groups. An interest group is considered relevant when the interest(s) it represents are likely to be affected by the proposed development. This includes small local-interest groups representing specific activities or neighbourhoods, as well as large, professional, national (and potentially interna-tional) organisations, such as nature conservation associations.

These organisations provide information for understanding the study area through interviews with key informants, often the representatives of the interest groups. Note that these representatives are not specifically involved as respondents in Phase 2, as they represent specific interest groups. Telephone interviews are conducted with key informants, lia i-son contacts for relevant groups, and other knowl-edgeable local individuals.

The preparatory study results in a research plan,

An adequate and representative consideration of citizen’s judgements of environmental attributes, and how project alternatives may affect these qualities, requires a structured research process, which citizen values assessment provides

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

4:06

08

Oct

ober

201

4



defines categories of respondents, and identifies a process for selecting representatives of the various groups. Respondent groupings are typically based on factors such as geographic distribution, landuse pat-terns and specific activities.

Phase 2: identifying key values

The primary objectives of Phase 2 are to: investigate the baseline conditions of the study area; collect data illustrating the location-specific relationships of cit i-zens with their living environment; and identify the environmental values that are considered relevant by citizens. This information becomes the basis for the development of a preliminary profile.

The identification of the key values is the core of a CVA study. Data are collected by face-to-face in-terviews with citizens. These provide detailed under-standing about what the environment means to citizens. The interviews are semi-structured, with the course of the conversation led by the interviewer following strategically arranged discussion themes (see Box 1). Respondents are invited to discuss these themes in their own way, using their own words, and from their own perspective. Interviews last approxi-mately one hour.

Interviews are conducted with representatives of

relevant groups, such as residents, commuters, workers, day-trippers and tourists. For accuracy, CVA requires skilled professional interviewers committed to its premises. They should be able to approach respondents in an unbiased way and respect differing perceptions of reality. Interviews are tape-recorded and transcribed for qualitative data analysis.

The large quantity of information collected is org- anised into a coherent picture by a process of ‘open coding’ and ‘analytical memo writing’ (Neuman, 1996). Each transcript is examined for mention of elements of the living environment, and for specific meanings associated with those elements. This results in a listing of ‘element-meaning pairs’ — elements of the environment together with the mean-ings ascribed to those elements by interviewees.

Then follows a process of sorting (interview themes), categorising (types of values), and synthe-sising a listing of key values underlying the per-ceived attributes of the living environment. This phase requires social researchers adequately skilled in qualitative analysis.

The results are presented in a separate report structured along the interview themes. One intention of CVA is to allow citizens to recognise themselves in the outcomes, showing them that they have been heard and listened to, and reinforcing the legitimacy of citizens’ values and rationality in the EIA process. To achieve this, many quotations are used to illus-trate and justify the descriptions of what the living environment means to citizens. The outcome of Phase 2 is a listing of the key values.

The report, or at least a summary, from this phase should be sent to all respondents. This is an impor-tant step to check whether the analysis is perceived to be adequate. Ideally, the outcomes of this phase are discussed with community representatives. The report, and preliminary drafts of it, should be dis-tributed to the proponent’s project team, so that the information can be used as an input for project mit i-gation and design and as feedback on the impact of the communication strategies of the proponent.

If CVA is initiated early enough, the (preliminary) outcomes can be used to profile the content of the EIA study. The use of these preliminary results is a substantial part of the total contribution of CVA to the EIA process. An example is discussed in Box 2.

Phase 3: constructing a citizen values profile

In Phase 3, the preliminary profile is transformed into a final assessment matrix, or citizen values pro-file (CVP). The CVP represents the importance of the environmental values from the perspective of citizens. Data are collected by a quantitative survey, normally a mail survey, of a random sample of the potentially affected population. This is done to:

• validate the preliminary profile. Data are collected to confirm whether the set of key values is comprehensive and that each is actually relevant.

Box 1. Discussion themes in a CVA interview with residents (Phase 2)

• Perceptions of environmental qualities Why did the resident choose to live here? What is the specific connection with this living environment? What makes the person feel ‘rooted’ in the area? What is special about this living environment? What factors cause nuisance? How does the resident make use of the area?

• Observed and expected changes in environmental qualities What changes has the resident recently observed? Are these changes positive or negative? Why? What changes does the resident anticipate will occur in the near future? Are these changes positive or negative, and why?

• Problem underlying the proposed project Does the resident know about the underlying issue? Does the resident acknowledge the problem? Does the resident agree that the problem should be tackled in the way intended by the proponent? What is the resident’s opinion of the proposed project?

• Opinion towards proposed project [Note: this information is used to increase understanding of residents’ value judgements about environmental qualities and impacts on environmental qualities; this information is not meant to investigate the extent of public acceptance or resistance.] What is the opinion of the resident about the project and the alternatives that are relevant to them? (maps, drawings and/or artist impressions of alternatives are shown to the resident to provide background).

• Perceptions of possible impacts Interviewee is asked which environmental qualities may be affected by the proposed alternatives (as before, maps, drawings and/or artist impressions may be shown).

• Issues relevant for design What measures should be taken to minimise those possible impacts that are relevant to the resident? What other measures could the resident think of to compensate for those impacts that cannot be avoided?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

4:06

08

Oct

ober

201

4



• determine the importance of each of the key values by asking respondents to prioritise them. Potentially, this can be done in three ways: scor-ing each of the key values on a scale (say from 1 to 10, or 1 to 100); rating each value on a Likert Scale; or ranking them. Ranking is not usually practical since the large number of values makes it too taxing on respondents. Statistically, it is preferable for Likert scales to contain more categories (that is, 5 or 7) to provide greater differen-tiation, but respondents generally prefer less categories. The aggregated scores across all respondents provide the basis for determining the weighting to be assigned to each key value.

• score the present living environment in respect of the key values.

• collect information to assist in developing mitiga-tion measures and/or for the consideration of compensation.

The questionnaire consists of four sections (Box 3). To avoid large non-response bias, it is very impor-tant that the questionnaire and accompanying letter are citizen-friendly (no jargon; no official language). They must clearly describe the status of CVA within the EIA process to prevent inflated expectations of what will be done with the outcomes of the CVA.

When the proposed project has alternative loca-tions, separate samples are required. In this situation, the key values may differ among locations requiring different questionnaires. To ensure validity and reli-ability of the results, the sampling procedures need to be justified explicitly, and the way in which key values are translated into questions needs to be transparent.

The results of this phase are presented in a separate report in which the final CVP is presented. The CVP may consist of a number of different sub-profiles for different locations and/or different alter-natives. Each sub-profile lists the key values in order of importance.

Phase 4: determining impacts of project alternatives

In Phase 4, the CVA researcher translates the key values into evaluation criteria. The outcome is an overview, from the perspective of citizens, of the potential impacts of alternatives on the attributes of the living environment. This phase starts after the design of alternatives has been finalised. It consists of the following steps:

• translation of key values into evaluation criteria; • operationalisation of evaluation criteria by identi-

fication of quantitative or qualitative variables, and identification of data sources;

• determining importance of impacts for each criterion;

• recommendations for mitigation and/or compensation.

The crucial step in this phase is how the CVP is transformed into evaluation criteria. This involves selection and judgement of the available information by the CVA researcher. Transparency and justifica-tion are essential. There should be no doubt about how the criteria were operationalised.

The first step is the selection of those key values that discriminate between alternatives. For example , concern about safety in a residential area may be relevant for assessing impacts of an infrastructure

Box 2. Example of the use of preliminary results of CVA during Phase 2

An EIA study was conducted on the upgrading of the high-way bypass (ring road) round the city of Eindhoven in the south of The Netherlands. The upgrading was intended to solve traffic jams on major connecting highways. The identifi-cation of key values in the CVA study conducted as part of that EIA provided useful location-specific information on recreational use of the areas surrounding the highways as well as on traffic nuisance. This included: information about horses crossing the highways being blinded by car lights (the area is known for equestrian activities); the importance of openness of the landscape (even a green sound barrier would cause serious harm to the aesthetics of the land-scape); the increase of noise nuisance even after noise-reduction measures in other locations; the nature of traffic nuisance (local traffic versus highway traffic); and nuisance caused by through traffic in local streets (specifying particular locations).

The CVA interviews provided insight about how the public judged the alternatives. It also revealed that the residents had very different perceptions to the experts about how effec-tive the various alternatives would be at addressing the vari-ous issues in the ring road upgrading, specifically in relation to one of the alternatives. As a result of this information, the project team was able to reconsider the information being provided about that alternative, and made changes to it to correct the potential miscommunication.

Box 3. Outline of a CVA questionnaire (Phase 3)

• Introduction Description of the objective of the study and a brief description of the proposed project and the underlying problem.

• Part 1. Evaluation of the present living environmentFor each selected key value in Phase 2, respondents are asked to consider: (1) whether or not they consider the key value relevant in terms of their living environment; and (2) how they judge the quality of their current living environment in relation to this key value. Space exists for respondents to nominate new key values under an ‘other’ heading. Any additional value must be scored in the same way.

• Part 2. Relative importance of the key valuesRespondents are asked to judge the key values (which may include the values added by the respondent), by scoring each key value on a scale from 1 to 10 (or 100), or to rate them on a Likert Scale.

• Part 3. Mitigation and compensation measuresDifferent questions are formulated depending on the type of project and the project environment. Questions may relate to impacts such as noise nuisance or loss of visual amenity, or to design and siting issues such as road layout, location of facilities or land reclamation.

• Part 4. General demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the respondents

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

4:06

08

Oct

ober

201

4



project when the factors that make people feel un-safe are related to traffic (for instance, shortcuts through residential areas). However, safety concerns may not be relevant to the CVA when such concern is caused by anti-social behaviour unrelated to the proposed project. In the second step, each discrimi-nating key value is translated into an evaluation cri-terion. For each criterion, the underlying meanings, how they are operationalised, whether by means of qualitative or quantitative variables, and what data sources exist, need to be explained on the basis of the outcomes of Phase 2.

The primary and most appropriate data sources are the various impact studies (expert studies) carried out by the EIA team. For example, a criterion ‘quiet, green living environment’ may be operation-alised by utilising expert studies on noise nuisance, traffic patterns and visual amenity. The importance of probable impacts can be determined, either di-rectly from the empirical results of the expert stud-ies, or it can be derived from interpretations of these studies made by the CVA researcher.

However, the information needed for the determi-nation of impacts considered relevant by citizens will not always be available in the expert studies. When a criterion cannot, or can only partly, be linked with the expert judgements, additional vari-ables have to be conceived.

For example, in the case of a proposed highway, the evaluation criterion ‘preservation of outlook or vista’ (referring to the scenic or aesthetic values of a residential area) might be connected with the vari-able ‘road surface height’ in terms of height above (or below) ground level. If so, this may provide an indication of the extent to which the road embank-ments will block the view of citizens.

In some cases, situations may arise in which the majority of required data is not available in the ex-pert studies. To overcome this, workshops to derive impact measures could be held with a selection of experts, representatives of interest groups and knowledgeable citizens. A Delphi technique could be applied with participants to come to consensus on the weightings (Taylor et al, 1995).

Ultimately, each alternative requires a score for each evaluation criteria. This can be done with a

five-point scale (such as ++, +, 0, –, – –). Another option is to rank the alternatives for each criterion. An overall assessment is conducted by considering all scores of each alternative, together with the weighting for each criterion.

Qualitative analysis can be used, resulting in an overview of positive and negative aspects of each alternative. Such an analysis can be summarised in a final score based on an average appreciation of an average user of a local area. The weights can be used in an analysis of the essential differences between alternatives. The analysis should focus on those criteria that have relatively high weights, and/or those criteria for which the impacts score relatively high.

Alternatively, multi criteria analysis (MCA) can be used, using various weighting techniques (such as using a five-point scale ++, +, 0, –, – –; rankings; or quantitative techniques) (see de Vries, 1999). When alternatives are located in different sub-areas, CVA may result in different criteria and/or varying weights. In these cases, criteria need to be clustered into coherent themes at a higher abstraction level, before MCA is applied. In any case, simple forms of CVA are preferable. A complicated MCA procedure implies a degree of quantitative precision and does not reflect the character of CVA, which is primarily a qualitative instrument.

The outcome of Phase 4 is the final (and full) CVA report in which the whole process is described, the outcomes of each phase are summarised, the im-pacts of alternatives are presented and alternatives are compared.

There are several problems that can be encoun-tered in Phase 4. The CVA researcher plays an important role in interpreting data and drawing conclusions, which means that it is very important that this input be validated. Transparency and justi-fication of interpretations are an important basis for quality control, but they cannot prevent all bias.

Ideally, verification is achieved through short workshops, in which representatives of project plan-ners, experts involved in impact assessment, and community and other interest groups, discuss the operationalisations proposed by the researcher. This, however, is labour intensive. Preferably, verification is integrated in the ongoing communication process, for instance, through discussion in existing advisory groups in which community groups and other inter-ested parties are represented.

To be able to make optimal use of the impact studies conducted in the EIA process, specific peri-ods of information exchange between the CVA study and the expert studies should be planned. Thus, CVA should start in the very early stages of project design (and the EIA process) so that its pre-liminary results can be used as input for scoping.

Working with the outcomes of the various studies used as part of the EIA has revealed that there is considerable variation in the scales used to score impacts. This makes results hard to compare.

The information needed for the determination of impacts considered relevant by citizens will not always be available in the expert studies: when a criterion cannot be linked with the expert judgements, additional variables must be conceived

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

4:06

08

Oct

ober

201

4



Further, it is clear that in many EIA sub-reports, in-terpretations are often implicit. When justification is lacking, a secondary analysis of these data is diffi-cult for the CVA researcher. Some harmonisation between CVA, SIA and EIA is required, and greater recognition of the role of CVA (and SIA) in EIA is desirable .

Follow-up phase: integrating CVA in the EIS

The results of a CVA need to be integrated into the final EIS. This is crucial for the potential role of CVA in decision-making. The more explicit and elaborate the CVA outcomes that are presented in the EIS, the greater the chance that they will influ-ence decision-making. Furthermore, the more ex-plicitly they are presented, the more recognizable citizens’ value orientations will be to the citizens who read the EIS. This will potentially increase the legitimacy of the EIS in their eyes.

There are four ways in which CVA outcomes can be incorporated in the EIS. Presenting the outcomes of a full CVA independently gives the strongest statement of commitment that citizens’ values will be respected. This option emphasises the different nature of the information CVA presents, being based on citizens’ perspectives rather than that of experts. It allows for the development of a ‘most citizen-friendly’ alternative as a counterpart to the ‘most environment-friendly’ alternative often defined in EIA studies.

A second way of presenting CVA outcomes is as one of the sub-components of the topic ‘living envi-ronment’. This places them alongside the expert im-pact studies on other sub-components such as noise nuisance and emissions. However, this option not only reduces the prominence of the CVA outcomes within the overall EIA, it neglects the distinct char-acter of data provided by CVA. This option can also lead to confusion because some aspects, such as landscape or recreation, may be presented twice in the final table (under technical sections as well as in the CVA).

Third, a citizen values scenario can be developed. Here, the outcomes of the CVA study are used as input for a MCA applied to the main themes in the overall assessment matrix. The citizen values sce-nario can be compared with other scenarios, such as a nature or an economic one. The CVP is used to assign weights to these aspects or themes in the overall assessment matrix.

Two approaches are possible in developing the scenario. In one, the CVA assessment matrix is matched with the expert assessment matrix. All vari-ables in the expert assessment matrix that are not mentioned by citizens are deleted. The weights for the remaining variables are calculated by translating weights from the CVA into ones in the expert evaluation matrix.

Alternatively, weights can be assigned only to the main categories (aggregates of variables) in the

assessment matrix. In both procedures, a ranking of alternatives is constructed by means of MCA. The development of a citizen scenario may be used as the sole outcome of a CVA study, in which case Phase 4 of the CVA method can be omitted. However, this reduces the potential value of the data collected earlier.

The final option, and weakest form of applying CVA, is to use the information from the CVP to comment on any list of impacts provided by other sources. For example, a CVA/SIA practitioner may be asked by an EIA team to comment on the impacts of alternatives. Here, information about the commu-nity could be used by the CVA practitioner to assign weights on behalf of the community. This option is relatively cheap and can be undertaken in a rela-tively short timeframe (because Phase 4 is not re-quired), but it seriously reduces the potential of the method.

Case study of Rotterdam highway options

Introduction

Highway A20 (see Figure 1) is a major part of the transport network in The Netherlands specifically linking Rotterdam City and its harbour (arguably the world’s largest port) with Amsterdam airport Schi-phol (a major airfreight centre) and other major Dutch cities, Amsterdam, The Hague, Utrecht, and ultimately Germany, Belgium, France and England. A bottleneck occurs with north–south traffic travel-ling along the A16 and A13 being forced to traverse a seven kilometre section of the A20 between the highway junctions Terbregseplein and Kleinpolder-plein in inner Rotterdam (a city of some 600,000 inhabitants).

Here, the congestion chance (that is, the probabil-ity of being in a traffic jam on a specific highway section over a 24-hour period) was above 20% in 1995, much higher than the accepted national stan-dards of 2% for international access highways (A20 and A16) and 5% for other national highways (A13). It was considered that, if no action were taken, the congestion chance would increase to over 35% by 2010.

The consequences of this increasing congestion include declining accessibility and longer journey times, as well as severe negative effects on residen-tial areas particularly declining quality of the living environment and safety. With only small distances between the roadway and buildings, noise nuisance and air pollution are considerable. There was con-cern about the extent of ‘barrier effect’ caused by the highway going through a neighbourhood. Traffic jams also occur on the feeder roads. Nuisance is caused by cars traversing residential areas, often at high speed, in an attempt to avoid traffic jams. An English translation of the Dutch word, sluipverkeer, for this phenomenon is ‘sneaky traffic’.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

4:06

08

Oct

ober

201

4



Rijkswaterstaat, together with a steering committee comprising representatives of the Rotterdam City Council, the Greater Rotterdam Regional Coun- cil, and the Province of South Holland, identified two main alternatives for addressing the problems, one involv ing the reconstruction and upgrading of the existing highway (itself having two alternatives relating to the construction, or not, of an additional local road), the other being the construc-tion of an alternative route or deviation between the A16 and A13 bypassing the inner city area. An EIA procedure started in 1996 in which CVA was an integral part. The EIS was completed in February 2000.

For each of the three major alternatives there were a number of possible technical options related to the number and length of tunnels, the number of traffic lanes, precise siting, layout and integration with existing (local or feeder) road networks. To simplify the analysis, the EIA was based on a consideration of two ‘packages of options’ for each of the three major alternatives. Thus there were six variants in total to be considered. The packages of options represented contrasts, or minimal and maximal op-tions, for the problem-solving capacity of each of the alternatives in relation to traffic flow and environ-mental considerations.

Basic groundwork

A conclusion of the groundwork phase was that the study area should be conceived as three sub-areas, related to alternatives and the functions of these

areas for citizens. The construction of the bypass would have major impacts on the northern residential area of Rotterdam and the rural area out-side Rotterdam (Area 1). Special characteristics of this area are wealthy neighbourhoods in a semi-rural setting, recreational areas (forest, golf course, artif i-cial ski hill, cycling, sailing, horse riding and so on), and rural areas.

The reconstruction of the existing highway would have impacts on Areas 2 (to the north-west of the A20) and 3 (to the south-east). Area 2 is the area traversed by the A13. Further away is Rotterdam airport and nearby is an industrial estate. Area 3 is a densely populated residential area situated directly alongside the A20. Away from the A20, the area is less densely populated with important recreational areas. Four different user groups were identified: citizens; holiday-makers and day-trippers; farmers; and nature lovers.

Key values

Fifty in-depth interviews were conducted with repre-sentatives across the four user groups. A wide range of issues was mentioned as being important, and which could be grouped into three headings: living environment; traffic; and recreation and nature. There were few differences between the three areas of the study. Frequently mentioned comments re-lated to the peacefulness and tranquillity of their neighbourhood, a green environment, recreation fa-cilities, and accessibility to the facilities of Rotter-dam. For example, one respondent from Area 1 said

Figure 1. Highway network around Rotterdam and study areas (prepared by M van der Zel, Rijkswaterstaat, 2002)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

4:06

08

Oct

ober

201

4



“it’s great recreation here, just because of that I don’t want to leave”.

Traffic nuisance was also an issue. However, de-spite the fact that all interviewees lived near the highway, in all three sub-areas most emphasised the issues above and not issues such as noise. Traffic was an issue because of traffic jams, exhaust gases and sneaky traffic, but not because of noise. One respondent said: “in the morning I wake up with ex-haust gases up my nose”. In Area 1, respondents frequently mentioned sneaky traffic, while in Area 2, traffic jams on highway A13 were identified: “when you want to leave at 6.00 pm, you can’t get through”.

An unexpected outcome was that, in contradiction to the expectations of the EIA team, there was no suggestion that the highways were regarded as barri-ers dividing communities. Instead, the opposite was emphasised with citizens highlighting the accessibil-ity of the facilities of Rotterdam. The CVA team concluded that was because of the long length of time the highways had existed, and that therefore the residential areas had developed independently over the years and people had became used to the limited number of crossing-points.

Citizen values profile

Because the preliminary profile revealed that the key values were largely similar across the three areas, it was decided to construct one questionnaire. Key values that could not possibly discriminate between alternatives and were not relevant to this project (in-cluding comments about aircraft noise, train noise at night, neighbourly relations, and crime) were de-leted. The remaining 18 key values were included in the questionnaire.

A mail survey was sent to a random sample of 3,800 households. This number was determined by statistical estimations of projected response rates and the need for statistical significance. Address lists were provided by the local governments. The mail survey contained a reply-paid envelope and instruc-tions for completion of the survey, including which individual in the household should respond (to con-trol for age and gender effects).

The response rate was about 30%, resulting in 1,100 usable responses. Additionally, 139 holiday-makers and day-trippers were interviewed at differ-ent recreation areas. The results of the survey confirmed the preliminary profile. The key values were comprehensive and each was considered rele-vant. Only a few respondents mentioned other values, including having good neighbours and dog droppings (neither relevant to the project).

Although the key values were largely similar across the three sub-areas, the specific environmental qualities differed. For the determination of im-pacts, two assessment frameworks were constructed, one for the areas surrounding the A20 (Areas 2 & 3), and one for the area surrounding the proposed by-pass (Area 1). Table 1 presents the two sub-profiles. The results showed that the most important key val-ues of Area 1 were a quiet living environment, the high quality and level of facilities, the accessibility of the city centre, and recreation facilities. The most important values for Areas 2 and 3 were mostly similar to Area 1, although traffic exhaust was also ranked highly.

In Area 1, the ‘quality of the living environment of the neighbourhood’ and ‘recreation’ were the key values that the largest percentage of respondents scored highly. ‘Traffic annoyance’ had the largest negative score. In Areas 2 and 3, ‘facilities in the

An unexpected outcome of the interviews was that there was no suggestion that the highways were regarded as barriers dividing communities: instead, citizens highlighted the accessibility of the facilities of Rotterdam

Table 1. Citizen values profile

Area 1: Bypass construction (ranking)

Key Value Areas 2 & 3: A20

reconstruction (ranking)

1 quiet living environment 1

2 facilities in the neighbourhood 2

3 accessibility to centre of Rotterdam

4

4 recreational facilities 5

5 different species of plants and animals

7

6 large nature area 9

7 cycling possibilities 8

8 noise nuisance of highway 6

9 accessibility of recreational areas

17

10 traffic exhaust 3

11 heavy traffic on local roads 11

12 diversity of recreational facilities

15

13 rural character of the living environment

10

14 traffic jams on highways 12

15 noise nuisance of local roads 14

16 sneaky traffic 13

17 view of/over highway 16

18 accessibility of aquatic areas 18

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

4:06

08

Oct

ober

201

4



neighbourhood’ and ‘short distance to the city centre’ were the most frequently reported highly scored attributes. Respondents were negative about traffic issues, specifically exhaust, traffic jams and sneaky traffic.

Impacts of project alternatives

The first step was to translate the key values into evaluation criteria. Each key value had to be opera-tionalised and the appropriate data source identified. The key value ‘quiet living environment’, for exam-ple, was operationalised by considering the concept in detail. Respondents associated it with peaceful-ness, but also with images of children playing on streets, slow-moving traffic, and so on. Given this, it seemed reasonable to select traffic volume in residential areas as the indicator. The underlying assumption was that the less traffic, the more people would judge their neighbourhood as being quiet. Data about the traffic volumes in residential streets was obtainable from the traffic impact study.

After translating all key values into assessable evaluation criteria, scores for each criterion for each of the six alternatives were determined using a five-point scale (– – , –, 0, +, + +) (see Table 2). Where possible, scores were based on data from the expert studies. Some key values were easier to operational-ise than others because they linked directly with expert studies. For example, ‘noise nuisance’, ‘traf-fic jams on highways’ and ‘traffic exhaust’ all had direct parallels in data collected in various studies for the EIA.

In several cases, expert studies could not be used, largely because of inadequate description in the EIA reports. In those cases, experts were interviewed to provide a score. Another problem was the use of different scales in the EIA impact studies — some-times only indicating presence or absence of the is-sue. Here, interpretation by the CVA researchers was necessary. Only for the criterion ‘sneaky traffic’ was it impossible to determine impacts for the alter-natives. On this matter, data sources were unreliable and traffic experts found it impossible to predict how the alternatives would affect this issue.

Project alternatives compared

MCA was undertaken to compare the variants of each of the alternatives (see Table 2). Two forms of the MCA were considered. One considered each key value as being equally weighted. The other was an experimental procedure that used the ranking as a proxy weighting. In both cases, there were only 17 items because sneaky traffic could not be assessed. In the experimental process, the project alternatives were compared by multip lying the scores (– – to ++) with the ranking (reversed) and summed. This pro-cedure, although user-friendly, has ultimately not been accepted as standard practice because using the reverse ranking as a proxy weighting potentially

excessively accentuates the differences between the key values. A more valid way of determining weightings is required.

Table 2 presents a comparison of the six variants assessed according to the key values nominated by citizens (not including sneaky traffic). The first conclusion in comparing alternatives was that, from the perspective of citizens, the reconstruction of the A20 without a local road is the preferred alternative (the minimal and maximal variants had the highest scores). The reason for this preference is that no new road will be built, while other alternatives expose people who have not previously been exposed to highway impacts. Also, within this preferred alterna-tive, the ‘maximal variant’ is preferred to the ‘min i-mal variant’, mainly because the additional tunnels of this variant further reduce noise nuisance.

Curiously, in the alternative A20 with local road, the ‘maximal variant’ scores much lower than the

Table 2: Assessment matrix

Key values A20 without local road

A20 with local

road

Bypass

min max min max min max

quiet living environment

0 0 0 0 0 0

facilities in the neighbourhood

0 0 0 0 0 0

accessibility of city centre

0 0 0 0 0 0

recreational facilities 0 0 – – – – 0

different plants and animals

+ + – – – – 0

large nature area 0 + 0 – – – – –

cycling possibilities 0 0 0 0 0 0

noise nuisance of highway (reduction)

+ + + + + + + +

accessibility of recreational areas

0 0 + + + +

traffic exhaust (reduction)

– – – – 0 –

heavy traffic on local roads (reduction)

– 0 – + + –

diversity of recreational facilities

0 0 0 0 0 0

rural character of living environment

0 0 0 0 – –

traffic jams on highways

+ + + + + +

noise nuisance from local roads (reduction)

0 0 + + + +

view of/over highway + + + 0 – – –

accessibility of aquatic areas

0 0 0 0 0 0

Total score +10 +41 –23 –52 –40 –21

Total without ranking +2 +5 0 –2 –3 –2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

4:06

08

Oct

ober

201

4



‘minimal variant’ mainly because of its impacts on recreational facilities, variety in plant and animal species, and the destruction of a large nature area. This variant is a 2×2-lane road at surface level which passes through forest and recreational areas. The ‘minimal variant’ is a smaller road (2×1 lanes) which is ‘minimal’ in solving traffic problems, but has a tunnel under the forest and recreational areas. Citizens (that is local residents as opposed to high-way users) had a marked preference for greater use of tunnels because of the advantages for noise reduc-tion, improved views, reduction in traffic exhaust, and the ability to develop/maintain green areas on top of tunnels.

Integration of CVA with the EIA study

In the final EIS, the alternatives were compared from different perspectives: the human perspective (using the definition of ‘liveability’ based on gov-ernment policy); the citizen perspective (based on CVA); the nature and landscape perspective (based on ecological and landscape values); and the traf-fic/economic perspective. Each perspective was assigned a set of weights for the four major themes (and sub-themes) investigated in the EIA study (traffic, spatial development, economy, and envi-ronment) (see Table 3). The sum of the weightings in each case is 1.00. It should be emphasised that the processing of the CVA results was beyond the re-sponsibility of the CVA team. They were assigned by the EIA project team based on their interpreta-tions of the outcomes of various studies and of the logic of the each of the perspectives.

Application of the weights in Table 3 to a multiple criteria analysis of the six variants (Table 4) revealed that, in the human perspective, improving the A20 with an additional local road scored nega-tive and constructing the bypass scored neutral. Im-proving the existing highway without constructing an additional local road scored slightly positive.

In comparison, from the citizens’ perspective, constructing the bypass scored negative and improv-ing the A20 with an additional local road scored

negative for the ‘minimum variant’ but slightly positive for the ‘maximum variant’ (which actually contradicts the outcomes of the CVA study; see Ta-ble 2). Improving the existing highway without con-structing an additional local road scored the highest from the citizens’ perspective. While the differences between the citizen and human perspectives were not great, they differed considerably from the traffic and economic perspective.

Conclusions of case study

The case study demonstrates that including citizen values in an EIS is feasible and that the CVA re-search method was easily applied in the EIA context. The CVA study provided information on differences between alternative plans and information relevant for developing compensation and/or mitigation measures. Combining the citizens’ perspective with the experts’ perspective caused no difficultie s, and in fact added a dimension to the analysis that would not otherwise have been present. The added value of the CVA study was that the study provided new in-sights and put some assumptions of experts in a new perspective.

Noise nuisance appeared to be less important than was expected, and, despite the noise nuisance in several areas, some of these areas were very positively judged for other attributes. The conviction of the experts that the existing highways were seri-ous barriers in the living environment was not con-firmed at all. Instead the traffic jams were considered a serious problem. The outcomes of the CVA study showed clear differences with the expert assessment of ‘liveability’, highlighting the different emphases between citizens and experts. Thus, the CVA study did provide a broader overview of posi-tive and negative impacts of alternatives.

One problem in this application of CVA was that it was not adequately integrated in the timeframe of project design, and, as a result, information from Phases 2 and 3 could not be fully used in the process of detailing designs of project alternatives. Another problem was that, because the CVA used data from

Table 3. Distribution of weights for four perspectives

Theme Sub-theme Human perspe ctive

CVA perspective

Nature and landscape perspective

Traffic and economic

perspe ctive

Traffic Traffic flow Traffic safety

0.05 0.15

0.15 0.01

0.05 0.05

0.25 0.15

Spatial development Local and regional impacts 0.15 0.11 0.15 0.14

Economy Direct and indirect impacts 0.10 0.15 0.10 0.40

Environment Air quality Water and soil Ecology External safety Landscape aesthetics Noise and vibration

0.13 0.05 0.05 0.13 0.05 0.14

0.10 0.01 0.22 0.01 0.01 0.23

0.10 0.15 0.15 0.05 0.15 0.05

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Total 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

4:06

08

Oct

ober

201

4



other impact studies, the CVA report was one of the last to be completed. This required a certain degree of flexibility and creativity to integrate the results in the final EIS and in project design. For the optimal use of a CVA, it is of great importance that this is taken into account in planning the EIA process.

Postscript

The EIS for the Rotterdam Highway situation was completed in February 2000. However, changing government policy about major infrastructure devel-opment resulted in a reassessment of priorities, which led to a redesignation of the status of this project. As a result, at this time (early 2002), no gov-ernment funding will be made available for the project before 2010. Public release of the EIS was deemed to be inappropriate since no action was likely to be taken. The exact role of CVA in deci-sion-making in this particular case, therefore, is not clear, but we remain convinced of its potential role.

Conclusion

CVA is a useful addition to the EIA process because it adds information that has been systematically col-lected, which represents the way citizens assess the qualities of the environment, and which provides a systematic comparison of alternatives from the citizens’ perspective. By incorporating cit izen values

in the EIS — the document that describes, judges and compares alternatives and that is the basis of project approval — citizens are recognised as being relevant experts to define the quality and attributes of their own living environment. CVA broadens the scope of an EIS, thus providing an improved over-view of positive and negative aspects of alternatives.

CVA does have limitations. What citizens observe and expect does not necessarily include all aspects relevant to them, neither will citizens’ judgements be based on a clear picture of the situation at the time the project is intended to be implemented (which may involve long time spans). For a complete over-view of social impacts, a full SIA study is required.

The value of including citizen values explicitly in the EIA process, however, is that they become a se-rious (rational) component of what is considered the rational basis for decision-making: the EIS. An EIS that puts citizen values on an equal footing with sci-entific and technical information provides a broader overview of positive and negative aspects of alterna-tives than conventional EISs. Moreover, combining public rationalit ies and scientific rationalities in an EIS may make the document legitimate from a public point of view.

Successful application of CVA requires commitment of the project team. Many scientists and engineers still need to be convinced that social considerations should be part of EIA procedures. When members of a project team are sceptical about the added value of a CVA study, the added value will be limited. Another factor determining the suc-cessful integration of CVA in EIA is quality control. Social impact practitioners with relevant expertise need to be involved to guarantee high quality results. Ideally, feedback with representatives of the com-munity should take place at each research phase.

The development of CVA in The Netherlands con-tributes to the integration of social considerations in Dutch EIA. Furthermore, its development stimulated the discussion on the role of a social component in Dutch EIA. The development of CVA also contributes to the development of SIA expertise in The Nether-lands, tuned to the specific requirements of EIA.

CVA is an instrument that has the potential to be

The case study demonstrates that including citizen values in an environmental impact statement is feasible and that the citizen values assessment research method was easily applied in the environmental impact assessment context

Table 4. Results of multi-criteria analysis

Variant Human perspective CVA perspective

Nature and landscape perspective

Traffic and economic perspective

A20 without local road min +0.03 +0.14 +0.03 +0.29

A20 without local road max +0.08 (best)

+0.19 (best)

+0.05 (best)

+0.24

A20 with local road min –0.11 (worst)

–0.09 (worst)

–0.26 +0.23 (worst, but still beneficial)

A20 with local road max –0.04 +0.05 –0.19 +0.38

Bypass min –0.01 –0.02 –0.35 (worst)

+0.49 (best)

Bypass max +0.01 –0.08 –0.27 +0.48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

4:06

08

Oct

ober

201

4



applied much more widely than just within EIA. ‘Liveability’ or ‘quality of the living environment’ is becoming a major factor in many decision-making arenas. It has a potential to contribute to decision-making on spatial development, public safety (risk perception), and environmental and nature management.

What is even more important than the application of the CVA instrument itself, is the explicit recogni-tion by politicians of the relevance of systematic information on citizen values as a data source for decision-making. This requires a change in attitude towards experts’ judgements: they should be consid-ered an appropriate but not exclusive information source.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Annemarie Rodenhuis, Jacqueline Snoek, Anne Sorber, Dimitri Terlien, Anouk Tompot, Wilko de Vlieger, Danielle Vollering, Elly van Welie and Inez Ytsma for their valuable contributions as team members of the CVA development project. They are also grateful to Angelique Bergers, Hans Brouwer, Otto Cox, Henk Laagland, Heleen Sarink, Michiel de Vries, and Jan Wuisman for their valuable input in specific phases of the project.

References

Burdge, R J (1998), A Conceptual Approach to Social Impact Assessment (Social Ecology Press, Middleton, Wisconsin USA, revised edition).

Burdge, R J, and F Vanclay (1995), “Social impact asses sment” in F Vanclay and D A Bronstein (editors), Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (Wiley, Chichester) pages 31–65.

Burningham, K (1995), “Attitudes, accounts and impact asses s-ment”, The Sociological Review, 43(1), pages 100–122.

Dale, A, and M Lane (1994), “Strategic perspectives analysis: a procedure for participatory and political social impact assessment”, Society and Natural Resources , 7(3). pages 253–268.

Dale, A, and M Lane (1995), “Queensland’s social impact as-sessment unit: its origins and prospects”, Queensland Planner, 35(3), pages 5–10.

Freudenburg, W R (1986), “Social impact assessment”, Annual Review of Sociology, 12(4), pages 51–78.

Gagnon, C, P Hirsch and R Howitt (1993), “Can SIA empower communities?”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 13(4), pages 229–253.

ICGP, Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Princi-ples for Social Impact Assessment (1994), “Guidelines and principles for social impact assessment”, Impact Assessment, 12(2), pages 107–152.

Neuman, W L (1996), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (Allan and Bacon, Boston).

Ortolano, L and A Shepherd (1995), “Environmental impact as-sessment: challenges and opportunities”. Impact Assessment, 13(1), pages 3–30.

Taylor, C N, C H Bryan and C G Goodrich (1995), Social Assessment; Theory, Process and Techniques (Taylor Baines and Associates, Ricarton New Zealand, second edition).

Vanclay, F (1999), “Social impact assessment”, in J Petts (editor), Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment (volume 1) (Blackwell Science, Oxford) pages 301–326.

van Vliet, J (1996), M.e.(e)r. waarde belevingsonderzoek (The Added Value of Citizen Values Profiling in EIA) (Directorate General of Public Works and Water Management, Civil Engi-neering Division, Utrecht, The Netherlands).

de Vries, M S (1999) Calculated Choices in Policy-Making: Theory and Practice of Impact Assessment (Palgrave, Hound-mills/London).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

4:06

08

Oct

ober

201

4

citizen values assessment: incorporating citizens' value judgements in environmental impact...

Documents